Zoophilia an Unrecognized Problem in Animal Welfare Legislation

Zoophilia – an Unrecognized Problem in Animal Welfare Legislation
genital area or other physical damages or when it cannot be established without a doubt that
an animal was overstrained by rugged fixing or any other means, the investigation is dis-
missed and the accused person is acquitted, because zoophilia is not punishable on its own.
Other aggravating factors for zoophilic prosecution are the facts, that contrary as is the case
with other sexual offences, a victim of zoophilic actions is not only mute, but normally can be
legally killed and thus important evidence can be destroyed. If the animal is the property of
the acting person and the killing happens free of fear and pain, then such a person cannot be
held accountable, as most national animal welfare legislations, with the exception of the re-
spective German and recent Austrian legislation (Ort/Reckewell 337), do not foresee a general
conservation of life for animals (Goetschel/Bolliger 214).
2. Although the conviction of a person for damage of property can be based on minor dam-
ages , this regulation does not provide sufficient legal protection for the affected animals ei-
ther. As is the case with the regulation on trespassing, the respective clauses do not aim at the
wellbeing and the integrity of the animal, but merely at property of the aggrieved owner. The
norm calls for the wounding or killing of another’s animal, which can only be effectuated by a
third party. If its owner wounds an animal, such offence is not considered damage of property
in the legal sense. In this case, only the (very restricted) national animal welfare legislation
can apply. Furthermore, the prosecution for damage of property is only initiated when the ag-
grieved party lodges a complaint. Third parties, not entitled to ownership of the respective
animal, are not authorized to lodge such a complaint, so that no enquiry can be initiated with-
out the animal’s owner’s consent, even if the owner refuses such enquiry for paltry excuses.
Punishment resulting from damage of property (respectively, injury or killing of an animal
according to a country’s criminal code) is also ruled out, if the respective action was commit-
ted negligently. The same applies for acts committed by a third party, who, however, acted on
permission of the owner, who made his animal available for zoophilic acts free of charge or
against payment or who instigated somebody to such action, in order to get sexually aroused.
20